Contact Excerpt from Cardinal Ratzinger's The Sprit of the Liturgy Rites are not rigidly fenced off from each other. There is exchange and cross-fertilization between them. The clearest example is in the case of the two great focal points of ritual development: Byzantium and Rome. In their present form, most of the Eastern rites are very strongly marked by Byzantine influences. For its part, Rome has increasingly united the different rites of the West in the universal Roman rite. While Byzantium gave a large part of the Slavic world its special form of divine worship, Rome left its liturgical imprint on the Germanic and Latin peoples and on a part of the Slavs.

In the first millennium there was still liturgical exchange between East and West. Then, of course, the rites hardened into their definitive forms, which allowed hardly any cross-fertilization. What is important is that the great forms of rite embrace many cultures. They not only incorporate the diachronic aspect, but also create communion among different cultures and languages. They elude control by any individual, local community, or regional Church. Unspontaneity is of their essence. In these rites I discover that something is approaching me here that I did not produce myself, that I am entering into something greater than myself, which ultimately derives from divine revelation. That is why the Christian East calls the liturgy the "Divine Liturgy", expressing thereby the liturgy's independence from human control.

The West, by contrast, has felt ever more strongly the historical element, which is why Jungmann tried to sum up the Western view in the phrase "the liturgy that has come to be". He wanted to show that this coming-to-be still goes on  as an organic growth, not as a specially contrived production. The liturgy can be compared, therefore, not to a piece of technical equipment, something manufactured, but to a plant, something organic that grows and whose laws of growth determine the possibilities of further development.

In the West there was, of course, another factor. With his Petrine authority, the pope more and more clearly took over responsibility for liturgical legislation, thus providing a juridical authority for the continuing formation of the liturgy. The more vigorously the primacy was displayed, the more the question came up about the extent and limits of this authority, which, of course, as such had never been considered. After the Second Vatican Council, the impression arose that the pope really could do anything in liturgical matters, especially if he were acting on the mandate of an ecumenical council. Eventually, the idea of the givenness of the liturgy, the fact that one cannot do with it what one will, faded from the public consciousness of the West.

In fact, the First Vatican Council had in no way defined the pope as an absolute monarch. On the contrary, it presented him as the guarantor of obedience to the revealed Word. The pope's authority is bound to the Tradition of faith, and that also applies to the liturgy. It is not "manufactured" by the authorities. Even the pope can only be a humble servant of its lawful development and abiding integrity and identity. Here again, as with the questions of icons and sacred music, we come up against the special path trod by the West as opposed to the East. And here again is it true that this special path, which finds space for freedom and historical development, must not be condemned wholesale. However, it would lead to the breaking up of the foundations of Christian identity if the fundamental intuitions of the East, which are the fundamental intuitions of the early Church, were abandoned. The authority of the pope is not unlimited; it is at the service of Sacred Tradition. Still less is any kind of general "freedom" of manufacture, degenerating into spontaneous improvisation, compatible with the essence of faith and liturgy. The greatness of the liturgy depends  we shall have to repeat this frequently  on its unspontaneity (Unbeliebigkeit).

Let us ask the question again: "What does 'rite' mean in the context of Christian liturgy?" The answer is: "It is the expression, that has become form, of ecclesiality and of the Church's identity as a historically transcendent communion of liturgical prayer and action." Rite makes concrete the liturgy's bond with that living subject which is the Church, who for her part is characterized by adherence to the form of faith that has developed in the apostolic Tradition. This bond with the subject that is the Church allows for different patterns of liturgy and includes living development, but it equally excludes spontaneous improvisation. This applies to the individual and the community, to the hierarchy and the laity. Because of the historical character of God's action, the "Divine Liturgy" (as they call it in the East) has been fashioned, in a way similar to Scripture, by human beings and their capacities. But it contains an essential exposition of the biblical legacy that goes beyond the limits of the individual rites, and thus it shares in the authority of the Church's faith in its fundamental form. The authority of the liturgy can certainly be compared to that of the great confessions of faith of the early Church. Like these, it developed under the guidance of the Holy Spirit (cf. Jn 16:13).

It is a distinction without a difference. Customary means habitual practice, Tradition means that which is handed-down. None of this precludes gradual change, as the popes and councils themselves have taught and as Ratzinger is at pains to point out. What Tradition cannot be is revolutionary or radical.

No one can deny that what has been going on since Vatican II has been a radical assault on Tradition. The Novus Ordo was a fabrication to start with and a radical break with the past. But there have been many other departures from Tradition as well, both in what is taught and what has been doctrinally suppressed. This has been tantamount to a break with the faith itself.

Insofar as the Pope approves of such a course, he transcends his authority. In fact he has taken a solemn oath to do just the opposite and to defend Traditional teachings and practices. Thus the faithful are placed on the horns of a dilemma. They can either follow the novelties modernists are instituting with the approval of the Pope, or they can stick with Tradition and with the faith itself.

But neither you nor I have the right to make such distinctions. Boniface VIII made some way-out claims of direct secular authority which were supported by many in Rome for a long while. In the end they were rejected by Bellarmin when Sixtus V, his boss, began to entertain them. The Jebbie would have lost his job had not the pope died.

So what are you saying? Certainly we know what a tradition is--or else language has lost all meaning. The Pope takes an oath not to alter Tradition. Tradition is called "God-given" in the Papal Oath. Vatican I affirms that the popes must guard Sacred Tradition--which it identifies with revelation. Tradition is accordingly that which has been received from the apostles themselves--handed-down to us through the ages. By this definition the old Latin Mass is above all else traditional and apostolic. Ratzinger himself says--as did Pius XII--that it had evolved under the guidance of the Holy Spirit. The new liturgy, on the other hand, was fabricated out of whole cloth by an ad hoc committee and is the very antithesis of something traditional, being an innovation that breaks with our Catholic past. None of this is obscure.

In these rites I discover that something is approaching me here that I did not produce myself, that I am entering into something greater than myself, which ultimately derives from divine revelation. That is why the Christian East calls the liturgy the "Divine Liturgy", expressing thereby the liturgy's independence from human control.

And, the liturgy is an expression of the church community toward God and toward one another, as well as a teaching tool for novice churchmembers and a vehicle to lift oneself up to God. I cannot imagine the uproar which would be heard if a change in the liturgy were suggested to us.

<> A good question. The answer is that Rome, the Pope, the Magisterium decides what is and isn't Tradition. Ultima and his ilk think they define what is and isn't Traditon.

The Pope occupies the seat of Divinely-constituted authority and Ultima and his ilk are slaves of Satan in their opposition to Divinely-constituted authority. It really is that clear-cut and straightforward. It is mere Christianity. :)<>

I cannot imagine the uproar which would be heard if a change in the liturgy were suggested to us.

You make a good point. No doubt our Eastern Catholic brothers feel the same way. I attended an Eastern Rite (Ukranian) Catholic Church yesterday and it was the first time I ever heard the Divine Liturgy of St. John Chrysostom. I must say it was very powerful. My wife commented the Mass seemed holier and more mysterious than the ones we normally attend.

<> That is not necessarily a benificence. The Mass is the Mass is the Mass. Adopting an attitude of "never changing" the Liturgy is to court the error of mistaking the "accidents" of the setting of the Liturgy with the "sustance" of the Mass, the action of Jesus, offering Himself as a Sacrifice of propititiation for His people, as both priest and victim. On these threads one can witness so-called traditionalists making that error repeatedly. They have made of a Rite a superstition

Besides, the Litrugy of St. J. Chrysostom was itself radically changed early on, as you well know<>

Your notion that the Pope decides what is Tradition is absurd. It places the pope above the Holy Spirit and makes him the master of Tradition, not its servant. If he had such authority, he would not have to take a solemn oath on ascending to the papacy to guard Tradition and not to change it. But he does take such an oath under pain of excommunication. This is Ratzinger's point when he reminds us Vatican I set clear limits on the papacy. The pope is not, he says, "an absolute monarch". His power is limited by Tradition which is something he receives and is obliged to pass on. Papal power exists precisely to protect Tradition, not to undermine it or even attack it as the post-conciliar popes have done.

Here is the exact wording of the papal oath: "I vow to change nothing of the received Tradition, and nothing thereof I have found before me guarded by my God-pleasing predecessors, to encroach upon, to alter, or to permit any innovation therein." And here is the Vatican I statement on the limits of papal power: "For the Holy Spirit was not promised to the Successors of Peter that by His revelation they might disclose new doctrine, but that by His help they might guard the revelation transmitted through the apostles and the deposit of faith." This is not done when a pope allows suppression of traditional doctrines out of an exaggerated ecumenism, or when he awards with the red hat apostates who question traditional doctrines or when he invents his own liturgy to replace one which had been divinely inspired.

Your conflict is with Ratzinger and Klaus Gamber who know a lot more than you will ever know about the liturgy. Clearly the Mass is NOT the Mass, as you try to argue. One has been divinely ordained and transmitted through the ages, the other has been fabricated by modernists. Your attempt to equate the two is laughable--but also pernicious. The Traditional Mass has Catholic doctrinal underpinnings, the new Mass has Protestant doctrinal underpinnings. For instance, the latter emphasizes the meal aspect of the Mass and suppresses any conscious allusion to the Real Presence. On the contrary, everything is done to deemphasize that doctrine and to suppress its articulation as well as the yearning of the faithful to adore. Hence we have communion in the hands and no kneeling before communion. Do you think this is accidental? Is the removal of the words "Mystery of Faith" from the Consecration accidental as well? You can hardly say so. These are deliberate assaults on Traditional faith in order to appeal to non-Catholics.

The Pope is a divinely constituted authority, yes. No one argues that. To call me a "Slave of Satan" is stupid, however, when I am merely pointing out that the Lord has set limits on the papacy. You do not recognize these--which is why you are essentially a pope-worshiper and choose the pope over tradition. You do not mind any radical change, so long as the Pope wills it. By choosing thus, you are placing the Pope before the faith. This is to your own discredit, not mine.

Reread the excerpt. No one denies change is possible. But it is gradual, incremental, organic. The liturgy grows and changes like a living organism. This is Ratzinger's point-- and Jungmann's and Gamber's. What is NOT permissible is revolutionary change, radical change. This is what Ratzinger stated in his preface to Gamber's classic text: "In the place of liturgy as the fruit of development came fabricated liturgy. We abandoned the living, organic process of growth and development over the centuries, and replaced it--as with a manufacturing process--with a fabrication, an on-the-spot product."

What does organic mean in the context of the Liturgy? Ratzinger's position is not different the current or previous Pope's. Organic means dialectic. One cannot have a dialectic with oneself. The dialectic has to be in the context of ecumenism. Ratzinger is merely holding up one end of the spectrum, the East, and saying, "It is now time to reaccount for the East." Do you reject dialectic in Liturgical reform? If you don't, then you have to answer with what points the dialectic should be involved. If you do, then you have to explain what change means in Liturgy. The Popes have shown the way on this. The dialectic is with the separated brethren, East and West.

Organic does not mean dialectical. Where on earth do you get such nonsense? Organic means natural, by a process of living growth--and all living growth is gradual, incremental, never revolutionary, never radical. The pre-conciliar popes have affirmed this. The post-conciliar popes have not, but have proceeded to tinker with what has been given to us by God as our patrimony, in violation of their own papal oaths. Read Mediator Dei by Pius XII. Read Gamber. Read Jungmann.

Reading the following Ratzinger statements together presents an interesting problem:

"After the Second Vatican Council, the impression arose that the pope really could do anything in liturgical matters, especially if he were acting on the mandate of an ecumenical council. ... In fact, the First Vatican Council had in no way defined the pope as an absolute monarch. On the contrary, it presented him as the guarantor of obedience to the revealed Word. The pope's authority is bound to the Tradition of faith, and that also applies to the liturgy. It is not 'manufactured' by the authorities. Even the pope can only be a humble servant of its lawful development and abiding integrity and identity."

"In the place of liturgy as the fruit of development came fabricated liturgy. We abandoned the living, organic process of growth and development over the centuries, and replaced it--as with a manufacturing process--with a fabrication, an on-the-spot product." ...

The obvious question that follows would be, upon what authority then can the "fabricated liturgy" (Ratzinger's term) be accepted? It would seem Cardinal Ratzinger provides convincing testimony against papal authority being sufficient - even when backed by an ecumenical council.

I would truly like someone to try to bridge this problem without resorting to the usual antagonistic diatribes. I seriously doubt it is the first time this question has been posed, so someone out there might be aware of some more substantive responses.

Further: "dialectic" is a liberal code word, along with its twin "dialogue" and is a post-conciliar novelty. It had no widespread currency before Vatican II and is a mark of something far removed from Tradition.

You ask upon what authority can the fabricated liturgy be accepted? The answer is no authority on earth can force acceptance. This is why Cardinal Ratzinger reproved Bishop Ferrario of Honolulu for excommunicating Catholics who attended an SSPX Mass. The Cardinal affirmed the attendance "did not constitute the offense of schism" and that the excommunication "lacks foundation and hence validity." It is the modernists, rather, not traditionalists, who suppress and attack what has been received and violate the true faith by doing so.

<> No doubt there were some slaves of Satan back then that obejected it was a radical change because it was a different Liturgy than the Last Supper. Perhaps there was a SSSP (priestly society of saint peter) that formed a short-lived schism :)<>

Tradition is not so definite that it can be codified once and for all, not when some of its is oral. But even the written part is subject to change, because language changes. Scripture itself is under the same rule, especially since the very words of Ourl Ord were in a language other than that in which they were committed to writing. Institutions are what provide constancy, and in the case of the Church that means the apostolic succession and Petrine supremacy. My problem is that you are asking me to accept your interpretation rather than Rome's. That seems to me private judgement, and I cannot accept yours anymore than Gary Will's, someone whose views we both reject.

Even Luther and the early Reformers took this route. They claimed to read tradition better than Rome. It was a while before they outright rejected tradition as a concept, or rather reduced it to what is contained in Scripture. Calvin made themost logical case for the Reformation, but of course many Protestants rejected him as their master and now he is generally ignored.

Do you think doctrine evolves without dialectic? How? Dialectic is a process of reason. All liturgy has been formed and informed by reason. (You're not suggesting it's a product of revelation are you?)

In that sense dialectic is the organic process by which Liturgy evolves, just as it is the process by which doctrine is arrived at. Reasoning, dialectic, exchange of arguments... the same category of gift that when guided by the Holy Spirit arrive at Truth.

Stick to the argument. We were talking about liturgy, not doctrine. But even here, you err. The deposit of faith IS something received as revelation and transmitted over the ages. Its doctrines may be clarified--i.e., developed--over time by the use of our reason, but they may not ever be contradicted precisely because they originate through divine revelation.

The traditional liturgy is not a doctrine but a divinely ordained action. The Old Mass, in fact, is profoundly connected to ancient sacrificial rituals. For example, the ancient Judaic rite of sacrifice followed the tri-partite pattern of oblation, immolation, consummation. The Old Mass follows this same ancient sacrificial formula with its Offertory (oblation), Consecration (immolation) and Communion (consummation). Simultaneously, the Old Mass transmits the faith by underscoring Catholic doctrines in its text and rubrics.

The new Mass disgards this ancient structure--just as it ignores fundamental Catholic doctrines in order to be user- friendly to Protestants. The idea that the pope, by assembling a committee, might fabricate such a liturgy, is alien to Tradition--i.e., to the Church's own experience of herself. It is a radical notion that is directly contrary to the faith and has already brought dire consequences.

Where to begin? There are a thousand problems with the modernist innovation. To begin with, the new missal pushes aside the notion of the ministerial priesthood in favor of the communal action of the assembly. Never once is the priest's agency in bringing about the real presence of Christ under the species of bread and wine ever mentioned. Only his role as presider over the assembly is mentioned--13 times. This underscores the priest's relation to the people of God, but not the power the priest alone possesses to consecrate. This is deliberate. The intention is to emphasize the Memorial Meal aspects of the Mass and to deemphasize the sacrificial aspects of the Mass. This would be but one small example of the radical break with the traditional liturgy. There are hundreds of these differences. Notice how the Old Mass begins: with the recitation of an ancient psalm beginning, "I will go up to the altar of God, to God Who is the joy of my youth." The New Mass opens by asking the assembly to recall its sins. The focus is not on God, but on ourselves. The orientation is totally different--hence the altar/table that faces the people instead of away from them, symbolically toward God.

First of all, I posted CARDINAL RATZINGER'S argument, not mine. I have brought his perspective home to most of you, that's all. It is his position, as well as that of Vatican I that the Pope is not an absolute monarch. The papacy is at the service of Tradition, not the other way around.

The problem with most of you on this site is you're not accustomed to thinking in this way. Such a prospect forces you to reexamine your basic premises about the papacy itself and its limitations. This is because if Tradition is master of the pope and not the other way around, then our first duty is to Tradition, not to the pope, especially one who would assault Tradition in favor of endless innovations. This is because Tradition is nothing less than the faith itself.

But when you suggest that the Petrine supremacy is actually necessary for some kind of liturgical constancy, you are speaking foolishly. The east has done quite well preserving its heritage without the papacy. In fact, it has retained its Tradition intact without a pope, whereas we have discarded ours with a pope.

You wanted an example of modernism in the catechism. Let me give one example that bugs me. Here is paragraph 105: "For this reason the Church has always venerated the Scriptures as she has venerated the Lord's Body. She never ceases to present to the faithful the bread of life, taken from the one table of God's Word and Christ's Body."

This is modernist double-speak. In the Tradition of the Catholic Church, Sacred Scripture has NEVER been venerated the way we venerate Christ's Body, which has been ADORED. We do not worship Scripture, but we worship Christ's Presence in the Holy Eucharist. The attempt to ignore this huge difference and to pretend the two are held in equal esteem is offensive to the faith. This is the modernist, not the traditional, view, which conflates Christ's virtual presence in Scripture with his actual presence in the Sacred Host. This phony conflation occurs over and over in the Novus Ordo Mass.

You contend Rome is a better judge of Tradition than anyone else. What's traditional about the Novus Ordo Mass? What's traditional about Assisi Prayer meetings or kissing the Koran? What's traditional about giving openly apostate bishops the red hat? What's traditional about the Pope's visiting a synagogue to pray with Jews for a different messiah? Show me where the Church has ever supported such radical breaks with her own past--with no end in sight. You people are amazing. You sound truly desperate, coming up with such lame excuses.

By the way, it was Luther who BROKE with tradition, claiming he was returning to the primitive Church, though he had no way of knowing this apart from the Tradition he was trashing. He began as the modernists begin--by turning the altar around to face the people--a switch which Gamber has proven beyond a shadow of a doubt to be a false assumption about the early Church. Gamber has published photos showing bas-reliefs from the first century which depict altars facing east, away from the people, toward a rising sun. Luther also, by the way, rejected the Mass as a sacrifice, much as the modernists do, insisting the liturgy was nothing more than a memorial meal. So it is post-conciliar Rome that models itself on Luther's vision, rather than on the Tradition it has received from Christ and the apostles.

If by Rome you mean the Pope, I do not reject him--any more than Cardinal Ratzinger does when he points out a pope is not an absolute monarch. I reject only what he has no right to ask of Catholics--that we turn our backs on Tradition and embrace innovations that are wrecking Christ's Church.

Please get the edition of the Catechism that was corrected to accurately reflect Catholicism.

My paragraph 105 reads:"God is the author of Sacred Scripture.The divinely revealed realities,which are contained and presented in the text of Sacred Scripture,have been written down under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit.

'For Holy Mother Church,relying on the faith of the apostolic age,accepts as sacred and canonical the books of the Old and New Testament,whole and entire,with all their parts,on the grounds that,written under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit,they have God as their author and have been handed on as such,to the Church herself."

I am upset that you,UR, continually use documents that were corrected by the Vatican because the conniving English translators twisted and spun the original version to say what they wanted.Then you contort things to put the very worst light on the Church for which you purport to care.You need to check your motives,if you desire to make others believe you care.

That is not what it says. Read it again. It states unequivocally that the Church has ALWAYS venerated Scripture the way she venerates the Body of Christ. This is false. The Church has always taught that the Body of Christ was an object of our adoration, our worship. This was why in the past the Church had encouraged Holy Hours and Benediction ceremonies and visits to the Blessed Sacrament. Nothing comparable has been the case with Scripture, which, truth to tell, had even been somewhat neglected by Catholics. But there is a huge difference between Christ's being really present on the altar and His being virtually present in Scripture. Modernists blur this distinction. In the Novus Ordo much is made of the "Liturgy of the Word" in which Christ is virtually present, as well as his virtual presence in the assembly. But there is no mention at all of the Real Presence--and everything is done to suppress this belief. Which is why communion is given in the hands and genuflections and kneeling have been reduced or eliminated.

Has Rome also corrected Dei Verbum, chapter VI, paragraph 21? The same passage appears virtually verbatum in the Vatican Council documents. My issue of the Catechism was published by Doubleday and widely disseminated in the book shops in 1995.

Your comment is par for the course these days. Rome spends half its time dreaming up novelties, the other half back-pedaling. It doesn't surprise me my edition has been superceded. There was a lot wrong with the Catechism the first few times around. This is what happens when you depart too far from Tradition.

It is true that some try to equate the liturgy of the Word and the Eucharist. But the first is simply preamble to the latter. This is why the earlier use of "This is the World of the Lord" by lectors has been replaced by "The Word of the Lord."and the elevation of the book by the lector prohibited. But why deprecate the Scriptures? When most Christians were Jews, all went to Synagogue to hear the law and the prophets read; then they came to Christian services to hear the Gospels and other Christian messages and to celebrate the Eucharist. All this is still done.

Actually, no I don't know. Having grown up in the post- Vatican II era, and the NO was implemented before I can remember.

Oddly enough, I went to Mass yesterday at the Cathedral and too much was left out to be comfortable, really. Even the Penitenial Rite was skipped. I thought that was required. There's other things, but it's been a long day.

Disclaimer:
Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual
posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its
management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the
exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.